CathInfo.com

I've advised you- I interpret it how the very same tridentine catechism interprets it. How st Alphonus interprets it, how unanimous theologians interpret it (prior to Vatican II), how instructions of moral theology interpret it, how canon law of 1917 iterprets it which you dare to call erroneous. Is that not sufficient? Or do you deny they say bob/bod is part of Church's teachings? You are posing a false dilemma here as if I have to interpret something based on one sentence alone. I am not a protestant my friend. Yes, you feenyites would be all correct if that was the case. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Church teaches. If it allows for BOB/BOD elsewhere it is not a contradiction nor did Church have nothing better to do then spill ink for the sake of filling in the gaps. There is a reason why this is almost always mentioned. How that goes over your head, I don't know.
 
I've asked you how you interpret John 5,54- " Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."

See if we were to use feenyite tunnel vision logic here, then all who did not receive eucharist would perish, right?

You're on the road to a bad reputation just like me, lol. For some reason people on here don't like me because I make comments about the fillmore boys. Anyways, the fillmore boys, Fr. Feeney don't own the baptism issue. There was St. Leo, St. Gregory nαzιanzen that held water baptism & of course Christ -John 3:5- which doesn't have the word desire. I don't agree with Fr. Feeney on justification anyways, so I'm not a "feeneyite" You mention about the "feeneyite" doesn't receive the eucharist, I do, I attend the SSPX.   Check out this thread on X   https://x.com/1_lauren28/status/1527768820449955843

Look at this hogwash my feenyite foes. From Dimonds -"THESE FACTS NOT ONLY PROVE THAT ST. ALPHONSUS’ PARTICULAR EXPLANATION OF BOD IS COMPLETELY UNTENABLE – AND THOSE WHO ADVANCE IT OBSTINATELY IN THE FACE OF SUCH FACTS SIN GRAVELY AND TEACH HERESY – BUT IT DEMONSTRATES THAT ‘BOD’ IS A FALSE THEORY; FOR, ACCORDING TO ITS MOST CELEBRATED DEFINITION, ‘BOD’ DOESN’T EVEN GIVE YOU WHAT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT DECLARES YOU MUST HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED (IN THE STATE OF GRACE)."

I like how Dimond brothers give st Alphonsus a pass, he is in mere error but ones who promote what he taught are heretics and mortal sinners. But this is the common Achilles heel in feenyite camp- INCONSISTENCY.

The Augustinian position on Baptism of Desire is legitimate, and is held by St. Benedict's Centre. It was confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI as safe to hold. Here is Br. Andre Marie explain: "Saint Augustine taught, as is clear from this article’s epigram, that the providence of God would see to it that a justified catechumen would be baptized before death. God alone, in any event, knows which of those, with a votum for baptism and perfect contrition, He has justified. The Church can only assume, as the arm of Christ, the Principal Agent in baptism, that all are in need of receiving the sacramentin order to not only have all sin forgiven and abolished, but to be a member of the Church, the Body of Christ. Anticipating the rejoinder that no one is lost who dies in the state of grace, let me just affirm that I agree. Not only that I agree, but that I submit to this truth as I would a dogma of Faith. The Church, however, allows the faithful the freedom to believe that the providence of God will see to it that every person dying in the state of grace will also be baptized. This preserves the literal sense of Christ’s teaching in John 3:5: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can/not enter into the kingdom of God” and His apostolic mandate to preach and baptize all nations in Mark 16: 15-16." https://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html

Unlike Dimondite schismatics who need to attack ample Church teaching in order to sustain their erroneous and false position, the Indult Traditionalist Roman Catholics at SBC need do no such thing. Or, one can just agree with St. Thomas. Pope Leo XIII on St. Thomas: "to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."(36)" https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html

You two seem like you are just here to troll. The Church has never taught BoD. She has made many infallible statements where baptism is required for salvation and so strongly to the point that there is no room for BoD to be possible.

The fact that you bring up the Dimonds here and call them schismatics (they aren't) shows your lack of integrity. Also St Augustine didn't hold BoD, he correctly taught (against Julian) that God would never allow any of the elect to die before receiving the sacrament of the mediator. BoD is not a sacrament, it lacks the matter and form. There is no way for you to say that xyz person received baptism of desire, it's simply nonsense. I can tell if someone was baptised because they actually had water flowing on them while the correct form was invoked. You cannot do this with BoD, it's nothing more than sentimental cope.

You two have a lot of conflation in your posts, drawing lines to things that aren't even relevant in order justify BoD which really ends as and attack on the necessity of baptism.

Sure, maybe it was the westboro baptist church teaching it through UOM, catechisms, consensus of theologians, doctors of the church and code of canon law of 1917.

You will continue on your error, ignoring the proofs against a BOD already provided.